In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« George, Terry, Music on Video | Main | Visual Memory »

September 25, 2006

 Pedal Pushers X 3

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --


It was warm in midtown the other day, and danged if I didn't spot a trio of pedal-pusher-wearin' young American boys. (And yes, your faithful reporter did make a point of walking past these kids and listening to their voices and accents ...)



Will this look still be with us next year? Will it perhaps be even more widespread?

Ladies: What do you think of this get-up?

Best,

Michael

UPDATE: Spanish tennis star Rafael Nadal is a pedal-pushin' fashion leader.

posted by Michael at September 25, 2006




Comments

Well, It beats this or this. And, at least, we know that the fashion refrain of "What's come around will come around.

Be careful, this pants style will soon be seen on the streets of NYC, as the military/police style comes back in the next year or so.

At least, with the pedal pushers, we are rid of that stupid style of pulling one pants leg up and leaving the other down. That was the Dog Urinating Style, right?

Posted by: DarkoV on September 25, 2006 7:52 AM

The get-up looks better on young men with young men bods than it looks on older gents. But also skinnier young men. I can't really imagine football players of any age wearing this. It's a VERY youthful get-up---maybe not for under 12, but certainly under 24. The "utterly ridiculous" award would go to men over 35 trying to wear this. But, heck, don't listen to me...if men are men, they should care what Gretchen Mol thinks!!! (BTW--I finally saw The Gap ad about "skinny black pants" with Audrey Hepburn over the weekend. Hate it).

Posted by: annette on September 25, 2006 9:05 AM

I'll have to whip up a blog entry on alternatives to this goofy garb. Will email you guys when it's done. Hopefully I look less dorky than they do!

Posted by: Agnostic on September 25, 2006 9:53 AM

Geez, Michael, you're so old-fashioned! Still calling wimmen "ladies?" At least you didn't say "YOUNG ladies," which old guys around here think is just the thing to call old fat retired wimmen in the misguided belief that they will be flattered, overlooking the obvious insincerity.

I think these are nice guys with nice calves. At least we don't have to look at butt cleavage or wildly printed boxer shorts boiling out the tops of their jeans. That was the fashion the last time I taught high school in Montana.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on September 25, 2006 10:44 AM

I think you're thinking of the pants with the wrong mindset: as short pants rather than long shorts. Boys today feel that shorts that fall a little below the knee are much more masculine and acceptable than shorts which end above the knee. Therefore, "shorts" that fall even further are that much more masculine. Get it?

Posted by: Kai in NYC on September 25, 2006 1:32 PM

And for the fashion-impaired males in the audience, pedal-pushers are apparent "snug trousers ending at the calves; worn by women and girls", not shoes (my first guess).

My approach to fashion is best summed up by this recent Dilbert cartoon

Posted by: Ken Hirsch on September 25, 2006 1:52 PM

Sadly, this fashion (non)sense also hit Scandinavia this summer -- where it looked ridiculous on the tall, brawny descendants of the Vikings. They all looked like a bunch of girliiieees who shoulda been singing verses from MP's Lumberjack Song.... :p

Posted by: Jun on September 25, 2006 3:36 PM

Come to think of it, they'd look good accompanied by Robin Hood hats, no?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on September 25, 2006 3:44 PM

It's been *the* dominating look in Brazil, where I happen to live now, for the last three years at least. Has it arrived just now in NYC?

Posted by: robert on September 25, 2006 5:49 PM

I don't care, as long as there's some butt-shape in the back to look at. It does look better on young guys. Kind of insouciant. I hope they keep the leg hair, though. With females trying hard to attain adolescent boy shapes, sometimes that's one of the few ways you can tell guys from behind. Sometimes. Ah, scrub that, I see more hairy-legged women lately, for some reason. Never mind. Atlanta's not exactly a fashion center, anyhow.

Posted by: Flutist on September 25, 2006 7:17 PM

Of course, it was only a few years ago that all the attention would go to the other end of their anatomy and no one would care about their pants length but only about their hair length, which is nice and short.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on September 25, 2006 7:50 PM

Dear Sirs,

I think you will find that petal pushers (or as they are called today "capri pants") actually hit the leg just above the ankle. These gentlemen appear to be wearing "clam-diggers". As a lady, I find them attractive on men who have the legs for it.

Sincerely,
D

Posted by: Donner on September 25, 2006 9:29 PM

Donner,
I disagree. "Capri" pants are a bit longer. In my youth, "Capri"'s were called Flood Pants and were usually accompanied by white athletic socks that had a tri-color combo not seen in Nature.

Posted by: DarkoV on September 26, 2006 6:20 AM

There are subtle difference in the length of these mid-calf pants? Shows you how acute fashion observer I am ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on September 26, 2006 9:23 AM

MB: Keep calling them ladies.

Posted by: Lexington Green on September 26, 2006 11:39 AM

Count me out

Posted by: Reid Farmer on September 26, 2006 12:05 PM

And next week, when they get beat up at school, they'll grow some testicles.

Posted by: Eric on September 26, 2006 12:23 PM

Lex: it's not the pants that make a man.

Posted by: Tat on September 26, 2006 12:38 PM

"Lex: it's not the pants that make a man."

The package?

Posted by: ricpic on September 26, 2006 4:38 PM

What are you, the Sartorialist with all the fashion blogging :)

Also, please continue putting up pictures of handsome tennis players. It is a kind of public service, really.

Posted by: MD on September 26, 2006 4:46 PM

I am concerned that shorts have lengthened from mid-thigh (early 80's basketball) to the knee, below the knee, and now mid-calf. This slippery slope will soon deprive us of a useful garment.

Somewhat like aging, with accompanying ever-earlier dining times and the imminent dinner-lunch collision, will soon deprive our seniors of a valuable meal.

Posted by: Ed from Florida on September 26, 2006 7:10 PM

Sheer length aside, Michael, what's critical here is the slackness, far more so than in typical "slacks". Capri pants, and their older cousin pedal pushers, are tight (or, to me more lawyerly, at least form-fitting), meant to accentuate the calves of women. Young men's fashion (and this doesn't seem even close to new; to find the reverse phenomenon you pretty much have to go back to the disco era) is based upon the premise that your schlong is so large, and so frequently erect, that the essential criteria for lower-body clothing are distance in one dimension and elasticity in the other. Got it?

Posted by: J. Goard on September 26, 2006 9:36 PM

rick: the kopf, the kopf!

Posted by: Tat on September 26, 2006 11:24 PM

Well, it could be worse. It reminds me of 18th century breeches. Anyways, I think it looks sort of silly. But what do I know? "Fashionable" people never pay attention to me.

Posted by: sya on September 27, 2006 12:09 AM

What about the accompanying lengthening of short sleeves? Short sleeves have moved from mid-bicep to elbow to beyond the elbow.

Posted by: JM on September 30, 2006 1:18 AM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?